In Support of Integrating Minority Dialect Literature
into the Curriculum

Answer: Such statements have
no basis in linguistic fact. Instead, they are social judgments. As Peter
Trudgill (1975, p. 28-29) writes:

Judgements which
appear to be [about] language are in fact judgements based on social and
cultural values, and have much more to do with the social structure of our
community than with language. What happens is that, in any society, different
groups of people are evaluated in different ways. Some groups have much
more prestige and status than others, and, as a result, dialects and accents
associated with these groups tend to be more favourably evaluated than other
varieties. Types of language associated with high-prestige social groups
are therefore considered good and attractive and
so on, while other varieties are evaluated as less good in comparison. Judgements
about good and bad language are therefore based
on social connotations of dialects and accents rather than anything
inherent in the linguistic varieties themselves. They are judgements about
speakers rather than about speech.

Argument: Come on, double negation?
That has no place in literature.

Answer: Double negation, or more
accurately "multiple negation," is used in many dialects and, as
part of literature, helps to communicate a character's regional and social
background. Besides, multiple negation only recently became unfashionable,
having been common in nearly all English dialects at one time. Chaucer, for
example, used multiple negation.

Answer: The truth is, even in Appalachian
literature, dialect is often restricted to dialogue. As a result, Standard
American English is still conveyed as the dialect in which to write and the
one with more prestige.

Students are not getting the message that they
should not learn Standard American English. Rather, they begin to realize
that their dialects have validity. As a result, they become more interested
in language. If it is true that, if a child feels his language is inferior,
he is less likely to be willing to use it (Trudgill, 1975, p. 62), then
it stands to reason that if a student feels his or her dialect is acceptable,
at least in some circumstances, he or she will be more willing to use it.

Too, the subject matter, location, characters
and themes in Appalachian literature interest and are relevant to students
who live in that area. Why not use reading material that is going to engage
and motivate students? If students dont see themselves in
literature, theyll come to resent reading.

Indeed, the social distance between the
child and the characters he reads about, symbolised by the language differences
involved, would be smaller for most children if non-standard dialects were
used-which might result in keener readers who were more able to identify with
the characters, and thus with the activity of reading itself (Trudgill,
1975, p. 75). Wouldnt we rather have higher literacy rates and students
who were excited about using language rather than students who are so insecure
they dread reading?

Argument: But Im not from
this region. I dont talk like that. I cant teach Appalachian literature,
especially dialect.

Answer: So, let the students teach
you. Its important that you learn the dialect features of the students
you teach, since such differences can affect the quality of education speakers
of minority dialects receive (Labov, 1995).

Indeed, research in the United Kingdom has suggested
that the most problematical situation is one where the teacher and child
have markedly different accents and the teacher is not aware of the nature
or extent of the differences (Trudgill,1975. p. 48). Donna Christian,
an authority on Appalachian dialects, suggests that teachers and materials
developers need a clear understanding of the systematic differences between
standard and vernacular dialects in order to help students learn standard
English (Christian, 1997, p. 2-3).

Argument: For their own good and
to help them succeed, we should have students read and speak Standard American
English.

Answer: Philosophies differ. A few
points should be mentioned.

Linguists, in general, are opposed to attempts
to change students dialects in speech. One reason is that these attempts
rarely succeed. Students dont talk like their teachers. They most often
talk like their friends. This is because dialects can be an important factor
in group membership and a way of signaling group solidarity (Trudgill, p.
57). For a student to reject his or her dialect, he or she must want to change
his or her identity in some way. This is, of course, a highly personal decision.

It cannot be denied, however, that in dialect
studies, listeners tend to rate arguments and speech spoken without a strong
regional dialect higher, in some dimensions, than arguments and speech that
have strong dialect characteristics. Speakers who do not have strong dialect
markers in their speech are often rated more highly in terms of intelligence,
eloquence and authority. It is important to understand, though, that speakers
with dialect markers are rated more highly on sincerity, persuasiveness and
honesty. Speakers who change features of their native dialects, then, both
gain and lose.

Even if students decided that they want to adopt
more features of Standard American English in their speech, there is little,
if any reason why schools should prepare students for changing
their dialects. Research indicates that, if at some later point, a student
decides to alter his or her dialect, whether for reasons of geographical or
social mobility, he or she can do this with reasonable success. Rather than
insisting that students change their dialects in school, we can
rest assured that, if they choose, they will associate with others who have
the desired dialect and, in a less conscious way, adapt different dialect
features.

Such attempts at helping students lose
their dialects often have negative consequences. For example, by correcting
speech and rejecting dialects, we run the risk of making the student feel
rejected (Trudgill, p. 58). This obviously has consequences for students,
particularly minority students self-esteem and success in school (Cazden,
1988). Also, its difficult to change ones dialect. Psychologically
and even physically, it can be demanding. As a result, dialect speakers are
put at a disadvantage as they pay less attention to what they say and more
attention to how they say it.

However, many linguists do support the concept
of bidialectism, when students have command of two different dialects (most
often, their native dialects and Standard American English). Using this approach,
students explore differences between the way they talk to friends or at home
and the way they might talk in formal settings, then explore similarities
and differences, etc. Rather than asking students to eliminate their own dialects,
this approach encourages them to develop both dialects so that they have more
flexibility.

In contrast to speech, regarding writing, the
general consensus among linguists is that students should use Standard American
English. In written form, dialects are far less accepted in the workplace
and other institutions. Too, students can learn standard written forms and
have time to edit and proofread.